California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 3 R · 1 D cosponsors

AB 1200 — Whistleblower protection.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits an employee from interfering with a person's rights to disclose improper activity and authorizes the State Auditor to conduct an investigative audit upon receiving specific information that an employee or state agency has engaged in an improper governmental activity, as defined. The California Whistleblower Protection Act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and courts, as specified. Under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure is subject to civil liability and criminal penalties. The California Whistleblower Protection Act defines a "protected disclosure" to mean, among other things, a good faith communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. This bill would expand the definition of the term "protected disclosure" to include a complaint made to a Member of the Legislature, the Legislature, or any subdivision thereof. By expanding the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Other existing law, the Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits a state or local governmental employee from interfering with the right of a person to disclose an improper governmental activity, as defined, to an investigating committee of the Legislature. The Whistleblower Protection Act defines other terms for its purposes, including defining "employee" to mean any individual appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency, including the California State University and the University of California, defined public entities, or any agency of local government. This bill would authorize a legislative investigative committee to investigate and report on improper governmental activities or to refer the improper governmental activity to the State Auditor for investigation pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act. The bill would also authorize the committee to prepare and send copies of investigative reports to an employee's appointing power if it finds that the employee may have participated in improper governmental activities. The bill would authorize a committee to request additional information from a person submitting an allegation, as specified. The bill would prescribe various requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of people providing information in confidence and information obtained on investigation. The bill would authorize a legislative investigative committee to request assistance from a state department, agency, or employee in evaluating an allegation or conducting any investigation of an improper governmental activity and would generally require that such assistance be provided, as specified. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. Read second time and amended.

  7. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 24).

  8. Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.

  9. Read second time and amended.

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on P.E. & R. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 2).

  11. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P.E. & R.

  12. From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

  13. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 113 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (8)

Not signed on (113)

113 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 113 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Employment and Retirement] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8000
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 12000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Holden — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1200 do?
(1) The California Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits an employee from interfering with a person's rights to disclose improper activity and authorizes the State Auditor to conduct an investigative audit upon receiving specific information that an employee or state agency has engaged in an improper governmental activity, as defined. The California Whistleblower Protection Act applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California, the California State University, and courts, as specified. Under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or an applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure is subject to civil liability and criminal penalties. The California Whistleblower Protection Act defines a "protected disclosure" to mean, among other things, a good faith communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper governmental activity. This bill would expand the definition of the term "protected disclosure" to include a complaint made to a Member of the Legislature, the Legislature, or any subdivision thereof. By expanding the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Other existing law, the Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits a state or local governmental employee from interfering with the right of a person to disclose an improper governmental activity, as defined, to an investigating committee of the Legislature. The Whistleblower Protection Act defines other terms for its purposes, including defining "employee" to mean any individual appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency, including the California State University and the University of California, defined public entities, or any agency of local government. This bill would authorize a legislative investigative committee to investigate and report on improper governmental activities or to refer the improper governmental activity to the State Auditor for investigation pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act. The bill would also authorize the committee to prepare and send copies of investigative reports to an employee's appointing power if it finds that the employee may have participated in improper governmental activities. The bill would authorize a committee to request additional information from a person submitting an allegation, as specified. The bill would prescribe various requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of people providing information in confidence and information obtained on investigation. The bill would authorize a legislative investigative committee to request assistance from a state department, agency, or employee in evaluating an allegation or conducting any investigation of an improper governmental activity and would generally require that such assistance be provided, as specified. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 1200?
AB 1200 is sponsored by Bigelow, Chen, Phillip (Republican), Flora, Heath (Republican), Kiley, Mathis, Mayes, Bates, Fong, Mike (Democratic), and Patterson, Joe (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 1200?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1200?
Track AB 1200 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1200

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1200

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →